the-yaadihla-girls

Anonymous asked:

I saw that you were offended by a beautiful woman dressing in Native American outfit. I want to know if you are offended when a clown dresses like a cowboy? Or if on Saturday Night Live a comedian dresses as a white business man and acts a fool? Your outrage at Heidi Klum tells me you do not have much to do other than look for people offending you. Also, you are no more a NAtive American than I am, that term is offensive to me as I was born in America just as you.

ruthhopkins answered:

Wow, you obviously didn’t read my column about it. If you’re literate with basic reading comp skills go ahead and check it out:

http://www.racialicious.com/2014/04/08/heidi-klums-redface-photo-shoot/

My column clearly states why Heidi Klum putting non-Native models in redface with warbonnets and peace pipes is not only offensive but just plain wrong. Dressing up like another race is well, racist. There’s no comparing donning redface with dressing up like a clown or a cowboy. The latter two are professions. Native people are not costumes you can take on and off. I can’t believe how ignorant some of y’all are where you can’t understand that.

Furthermore sacred objects like warbonnets and the pipe (canupa) have specific cultural and spiritual meaning. Wearing a warbonnet is similar to wearing a Medal of Honor. If you aren’t a northern plains Native chief or warrior who’s earned a warbonnet by committing incredible acts of valor and self sacrifice for your people you have no right to wear it. We pray with the pipe. It was a gift to us from White Buffalo Calf Woman, a holy deity of the Oceti Sakowin people.

You appropriators have gotten away with disrespecting my ancestors and my people for too long and we won’t tolerate it anymore. You will be held accountable. Stop appropriating, stop exploiting cultures you don’t understand. Stop objectifying Native women and sexualizing us.

Your shit’s weak, at least come at me with a cogent argument. GTFOH.

kropotkitten
Like the rule of despots, representative government, whether it is called Parliament, Convention or Council of the Commune, or whether it gives itself any other more or less absurd title, and whether it is nominated by the prefects of a Bonaparte or arch-liberally elected by an insurgent city, will always seek to extend its legislation, to increase its power by meddling with everything, all the time killing the initiative of the individual and the group to supplant them by law. Its natural tendency will inevitably be to take hold of the individual from childhood, and to lead him, law by law, threat leading to punishment, from the cradle to the grave, without ever setting its prey free from its lofty surveillance. Have you ever heard of an elected assembly that declared itself incompetent of dealing with any kind of question? The more revolutionary it claims to be, the more it will seize hold of anything that is outside its competence. To legislate in every aspect of human activity, to meddle in the smallest details of the lives of its “subjects” — that is the very essence of the State, of government. To create a government, constitutional or otherwise, is to constitute a force that will in the end set out to seize control of everything, to regulate all the functions of society, without recognizing any restraint but that which we are able to oppose to it from time to time by means of agitation or insurrection. Parliamentary government — as it has amply proved — is no exception to the rule.
Peter Kropotkin, Representative Government (via sedimentarysyndicalist)